-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DRUDGE REPORT: Scandal of fiddled global warming data ... USA
has actually been COOLING since 1930s, the hottest decade on record...
(via Telegraph)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:08:49 -0500
From: askjdfhsasdfkjhf
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away
around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few
things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare
by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much
evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the
scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example
has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how
shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential
climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting� its record by replacing real
temperatures with data “fabricated� by computer models. The effect of
this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those
from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been
warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several
posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS�, Goddard compares the
currently published temperature graphs with those based only on
temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually
been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas
the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated� data, shows it
to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees
centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing
more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being
shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick�
graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter
than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so
consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not
as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the
aberrations of group psychology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...he-scandal-of-
fiddled-global-warming-data.html

On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:



Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA for yourself

"Booker has opposed the scientific consensus on numerous issues
including global warming, the link between second-hand smoke and cancer,
and the negative health effects of asbestos."

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-booker

On 23/06/2014 10:27, RedAcer wrote:
On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:



Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA for yourself

"Booker has opposed the scientific consensus on numerous issues
including global warming, the link between second-hand smoke and cancer,
and the negative health effects of asbestos."

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-booker

He was the pathological liar and intellectual lightweight that Prof Sir
Paul Nurse so comprehensively exposed as a charlatan on Horizon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...e-under-attack

It is high time that science fought back these lying dittoheads.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, 23 June 2014 06:26:47 UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2014 10:27, RedAcer wrote:

On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:







Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA for yourself



"Booker has opposed the scientific consensus on numerous issues

including global warming, the link between second-hand smoke and cancer,

and the negative health effects of asbestos."



http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-booker



He was the pathological liar and intellectual lightweight that Prof Sir

Paul Nurse so comprehensively exposed as a charlatan on Horizon.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...e-under-attack



It is high time that science fought back these lying dittoheads.




This is what NOAA say about adjusting their data: "There are more cold steps than warm, we don't know why, so we adjust it"

On Monday, 23 June 2014 02:27:17 UTC-7, RedAcer wrote:
On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:







Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA for yourself

This is what NOAA say about adjusting their data: "There are more cold steps than warm, we don't know why, so we adjust it"


Sorry, you were saying?

On 23/06/14 17:04, matt_sykes wrote:
On Monday, 23 June 2014 02:27:17 UTC-7, RedAcer wrote:
On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:







Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA for
yourself

This is what NOAA say about adjusting their data: "There are more
cold steps than warm, we don't know why, so we adjust it"


Sorry, you were saying?


It's all explained he-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

On Monday, 23 June 2014 09:19:25 UTC-7, RedAcer wrote:
On 23/06/14 17:04, matt_sykes wrote:

On Monday, 23 June 2014 02:27:17 UTC-7, RedAcer wrote:

On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:















Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA for

yourself



This is what NOAA say about adjusting their data: "There are more

cold steps than warm, we don't know why, so we adjust it"





Sorry, you were saying?





It's all explained he-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Its explained better he
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghc....0-29Aug12.pdf "cold steps warm steps, we don't know why, but we adjust anyway" page 10.

On 23/06/14 17:28, matt_sykes wrote:
On Monday, 23 June 2014 09:19:25 UTC-7, RedAcer wrote:
On 23/06/14 17:04, matt_sykes wrote:

On Monday, 23 June 2014 02:27:17 UTC-7, RedAcer wrote:

On 23/06/14 09:49, Joe Egginton wrote:















Don't wast your time reading Christopher Booker. Checkout NOAA
for

yourself



This is what NOAA say about adjusting their data: "There are
more

cold steps than warm, we don't know why, so we adjust it"





Sorry, you were saying?





It's all explained he-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Its explained better he
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghc....0-29Aug12.pdf
"cold steps warm steps, we don't know why, but we adjust anyway" page
10.



Seems ok to me. Why not follow the references they give if you want to
get a better understanding. Also more explanation is given in the
reference I posted.

"As shown in Figure 1, more positive shifts (cold step changes) than
negative shifts (warm
step changes) were identified in both v3.1.0 and v3.2.0. Because there
are more negative (cold)
step changes than positive (warm) step changes identified in the
historical record, the bias
adjustment process results in global land surface air temperature trends
that are higher than those
based on unadjusted data. Furthermore, the greater rate of changepoint
detection in v3.2.0, and
the asymmetric nature of the changepoints, results in an even higher
global land surface trend
than v3.1.0. Although the reason for the larger number of cold step
changes is unclear, they may
be due in part to systematic changes in station locations from city
centers to cooler airport
locations (Lawrimore et al. 2011). The greater rate of changepoint
detection in v3.2.0 resulted in
a 1901-2011 global land surface temperature trend of 1.07°C/Century,
while the trend based on
v3.1.0 is 0.94°C/Century (Figure 4). The greatest differences between
the two versions occurred
before 1970, and there was little change in the global surface
temperature trend during the 1979-
2011 period; 0.274°C/Decade for v3.2.0 and 0.275°C/Decade for v3.1.0."